Tsotetsi v Mutual and Federal Insurance (6654/94) [1995] ZAGPHC 2 (13 February 1995)
- Citation
- [1995] ZAGPHC 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Curlewis
- Case number
- 6654/94
More details
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Panel
- Curlewis
- Case number
- 6654/94
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, given the novelty of the constitutional issue and the absence of precedent or clear guidance on how the Constitutional Court would interpret Section 8 in this context, it is appropriate to grant the amendment to the pleadings and refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. The court exercised its discretion in favour of referral, noting that where the matter is res nova and there is a reasonable prospect of success, referral is justified. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the pleadings to raise the constitutional challenge, but must pay the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment.
Court disposition
Amendment to pleadings granted; matter referred to the Constitutional Court; plaintiff to pay wasted costs of amendment.
Orders
- Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the replication are granted.
- Plaintiff is permitted to amend pleadings to raise the constitutional challenge.
- Plaintiff must pay the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment.
02
Material facts
Parties
E. Tsotetsi
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr PreissMutual and Federal Insurance
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Replication and Application for Constitutional Referral
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether article 7(a) and article 46(a)(2) of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 are unconstitutional for violating Section 8 of the Constitution.
- 02
Whether the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court for determination of the constitutional issue.
- 03
Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend pleadings to raise the constitutional challenge.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff contends that the provisions of article 7(a) and alternatively article 46(a)(2) of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 are unconstitutional as they conflict with Section 8 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Plaintiff seeks referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court for adjudication on this constitutional issue.
- Respondent
- Defendant argues that the differentiation in compensation rights among passengers is justified by the legislative history and amendments to the relevant Acts. Defendant submits that there is good reason for such differentiation and questions whether there is a reasonable prospect of success in the constitutional challenge.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Judgment of FARLAM AJ (Cape); Didcott J (Natal Full Bench)
The court has discretion to refer matters to the Constitutional Court, particularly where the issue is novel and there is no clear guidance on how the Constitutional Court will interpret the relevant constitutional provision.
- 02
Section 8, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Section 8 of the Constitution provides that every person has the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, given the novelty of the constitutional issue and the absence of precedent or clear guidance on how the Constitutional Court would interpret Section 8 in this context, it is appropriate to grant the amendment to the pleadings and refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. The court exercised its discretion in favour of referral, noting that where the matter is res nova and there is a reasonable prospect of success, referral is justified. The plaintiff is permitted to amend the pleadings to raise the constitutional challenge, but must pay the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment.
Obiter and limits
- If the plaintiff succeeds in the constitutional challenge, the result may not necessarily be to his advantage.
- The legislative history of compensation for passengers under the Workman's Compensation Act and Third Party Act provides context for the differentiation in rights, which may be justified.
Court disposition
Amendment to pleadings granted; matter referred to the Constitutional Court; plaintiff to pay wasted costs of amendment.
- Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the replication are granted.
- Plaintiff is permitted to amend pleadings to raise the constitutional challenge.
- Plaintiff must pay the wasted costs occasioned by the amendment.
Source and reliance status
High Courts - Gauteng
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Courts - Gauteng
Judgment
Verbatim Transcriptions/AL
CASE NO. 6654/94
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
PRETORIA
1995-02-13
In the matter between:
E.
TSOTETSI
Plaintiff
versus
MUTUAL
AND FEDERAL INSURANCE
Defendant
J
U D G M E N T
CURLEWIS J: In this matter, which is an ordinary collision case and has pleadings which one would expect in an ordinary third party collision case, at a very late stage the plaintiff replicated - it was on 30 January 1995 - as follows and I read out the replication:
"The plaintiff pleads that the provisions of article 7(a) of the schedules of the Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund Act 93 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alternatively article 46(a)(2) of the Act is unconstitutional and in conflict with Section 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, such section determining that every person has the right of equality before the law, and is entitled to equal protection before the law. In the premises article 47(a) alternatively article 46(a)(2) is unconstitutional and stands/... stands to be struck down."
It asks that the matter should be referred to the Constitutional Court.
Counsel were not ready to argue the matter on certain legal points on Friday and it stood over until today at 09:00.
Counsel for the plaintiff wants this matter to go to the Constitutional Court. I would have thought that it would have suited the plaintiff better to have such matters as could be decided in this court decided and then go to the appellate division and then to the Constitutional Court, because that, incidentally, if that was something that the plaintiff wanted, and it was something that could better be done and give him a quicker adjudication, then I would certainly have said that that fell within matters that I could consider in terms of the words whether it is in the interests of justice to refer the matter to the constitutional court.
However that may be, that does not arise here. Plain- tiff's counsel has told me that his client wants to take this matter first to the Constitutional Court. He believes that there are very fiew cases before the court and consequently he has the chance of coming on very quickly. That being so, I cannot stand in his way.
Now it is a very simple matter that I have to decide. It is not whether the Constitutional Court will decide that there is a conflict. I must say that, speaking for myself, if one looks at the history of the Workman's Compensation Act and the history of the i942
Third Party Act and appreciates and knows the reasons why amendments had been brought in from time to time, making the question of the right of certain passenger to claim compensation different from other passengers, then I would have said prima facie that there was good reason for that differentiation. Moreover, if plaintiff succeeds he may achieve a result which does not suit him.
However, that is not what I have to decide. I have to decide merely whether there is a reasonable prospect of success. Now in that regard there is nothing to guide me as to how the Constitutional Court will approach matters concerning the differentiation between various people. I am satisfied that the judgment of FARLAM AJ in the Cape is one that should be followed. I am satisfied, as apparently
DIDCOTT J was in the full bench in Natal, that the court must have some discretion whether or not to refer matters to the Constitutional
Court, otherwise that court would be flooded with all sorts of frivolous and pernicious matters.
Now Mr Preiss says that is not the test, I still have to decide whether there is a prospect of success. Let me put it this way: Where the whole matter is res nova, and no counsel has been able to suggest to me upon what basis the Constitutional Court will interpret Section 8, then, in my view, one should lean towards granting a reference, rather than otherwise.
In the result, the amendment is granted. The plaintiff will of course have to pay the wasted costs brought about by the amendment.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the replication are granted.
---000---
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.